I strongly believe in completing journal entries, filling out the notary certificate, and applying the notary stamp in the presence of the signer, but just for the record, I don't believe it is technically true that it's illegal to not do so in California. The only text I could find that relates to this issue is in the General Information section in the first section of the CA Notary Handbook, which puts the law in more lay terms:
"The certificate of acknowledgment must be filled completely out at the time the notary public’s
signature and seal are affixed. (Civil Code section 1189(a)(1))" [Page 10 of 2022 Handbook.]
However, I could find nothing on that issue in the Civil Code referenced. The content of the actual citation now only refers to the relatively new disclaimer box that's been required for several years. The closest thing I did find was the following:
"§ 1188. Certificate of acknowledgment
An officer taking the acknowledgment of an instrument shall endorse thereon or attach thereto
a certificate pursuant to Section 1189." [Pg 43.]
(If I have the time, it might be interesting to see if this has somehow been left off from previous journals with the new addition. Anyone else?)
HOWEVER... There are some important points I'd like to add:
1. IMO, the meaning of the first paragraph quoted above is that a California notary public may not sign or affix a stamp to a certificate that hasn't first been completely filled in. No reference is made to the presence of the signer (although I suppose it's possible that's been assumed).
2. Whoever in the SOS office wrote the General Info section quoted above felt this was an important enough point to include it there.
3. Regardless of all of the above, I still believe it's an important 'Best Practice' for a notary public to complete the notary certificate in the presence of the signer.
If I'm way off base and have missed something in CA notary law that DOES say that it's unlawful to not do so, I'd greatly appreciate being corrected on this issue via a citation to the correct legal code. [It wouldn't require I change anything I do, but I obviously like to keep the record straight...  ]
Finally, I agree with the OP and others who commented on some of what goes on in title company offices. I remember getting a HELOC over a decade ago. The 'notary'(?) I met with didn't even have a notary stamp with him. He had me sign a journal and got my thumbprint, but I couldn't be sure he was even the notary, based on how the transaction was handled. He lightly rebuffed my inquiries and I decided to just let it go, but I clearly didn't feel good about it, either. Some of this is stuff that most folks wouldn't even notice, but we all know better - and a sophisticated signer will know better, too. That reflects poorly on not just the notary, but everyone up the line, IMO.
I'd feel very comfortable stating that a notary SHOULD complete the notary certificate in the presence of the signer, but if you're going to get into the weeds on this issue with a title co/closing agent, etc., be sure you're on solid legal ground...
[One after thought, after rereading all of the above... I don't see anything wrong with partially completing journal entries or notary certificates in advance. Signatures, thumbprints, notary seals, or whatever, can (and should, imo) all be added later at the table, i.e. I never sign or stamp a notary certificate until the signer personally appears before me.]
|
